The Guns of the Brothers Tsarnaev

[alcibiades_mystery]

What firearms did the two Tsarnaev brothers own, or have with them, or use on their famous flight from Cambridge? I think all we can say at this point is that the information is sketchy. We've heard multiple versions, some seemingly sourced and confirmed, but the information is so variable that it is impossible to believe all the sources. So, instead of doing that, I'll just post some of these versions here with only minimum commentary:

1) The Tsarnaev's had two handguns, a bb gun, and an M4 carbine (!). (according to a "law enforcement official" quoted in the NY Times, here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/22/us/boston-marathon-bombing-suspects-hoped-to-attack-again.html?hp&_r=2&
This story further specifies that the M4 (which is military grade) was found with the younger Tsarnaev in the boat. Here's the excerpt.

Along with determining that the suspects had made at least five pipe bombs, the authorities recovered four firearms that they believe the suspects used, according to a law enforcement official. The authorities found an M-4 carbine rifle — a weapon similar to ones used by American forces in Afghanistan — on the boat where the younger suspect was found Friday night in Watertown, Mass.

2) The Tsarnaev's only had ONE gun, a handgun. They killed Officer Collier in an attempt to procure a second firearm, but failed to take it from him because they could not get his gun out of his locking holster, so they gave up on that. If that's true, then there was only one gun used in the shootout with Watertown police. Indeed, the information has been very fuzzy, but there is only eyewitness confirmation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev with a gun so far as I know (from the carjacking victim and the image posted below), and only with a handgun. http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/23/miller-tsarnaev-brothers-killed-mit-officer-because-they-needed-a-gun/ Apart from the NY Times story, there has been no further confirmation of the younger Tsarnaev having an M4 carbine (which, again, is a lot of fucking rifle) in the boat with him. Perhaps the older Tsarnaev could fire 80 rounds at officers in Watertown (with, perhaps, a 17 round Glock), but the Watertown police chief's claim to Lawrence O'Donnell of 200-300 rounds seems unlikely.

Here's the except on that version:

The original question is they walked up to that car and appeared they shot the officer in the head unprovoked, that it was an assassination. But why? How did that fit into their plan? The operating theory now in the investigation is they were short one gun. The older brother had a gun. They wanted to get a gun for the younger brother and the fastest and most efficient way they could think of doing it was a surprise attack on a cop, to take his weapon and go. Officer Collier had a locking holster, it’s like a three-way lock. If you don’t know how to remove the gun, you’re not going to get it out. There was apparently an attempt to yank it and they couldn’t get it and left.

Here's the image of only the older Tsarnaev apparently shooting at the Watertown site, and apparently shooting a handgun:



I will not try to square the four gun theory with the one gun theory. I lean toward the one gun theory, and think the notion of the younger Tsarnaev trotting around Watertown with an M4 is, well, preposterous. We shall see when the smoke clears, I guess. The bar for the firearms search, in any case, changes substantially if you're *only* tracking down the origins of a 9mm handgun, as opposed to a military rifle like an M4.

[AnnieBW]

1. Thanks!

I was just wondering the same thing.

[Eleanors38]

2. So the "military rifle like an M4" was full-auto? That is the modern standard for military use.

Just trying to clear up any technical details, since there is a preoccupation with bans on DU.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Why don't you run it by your gunner buddies in the gungeon

I'm sure they'll research their Tom Clancyesque paperbacks and generate a full technical description. I'm posting what I saw in the NY Times, not a gunner catalog.

[Eleanors38]

6. But you seem to obsess on "military" type; you comment on that. So I'm running it by you.

Is it full auto or semi-auto?

The minimum standard for any prohibitionist is a proper definition of what they wish banned. But most prohibitionists don't meet minimal standards.

BTW, why didn't you post this in the "gungeon?"

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Wait, *I'm* obsessed?

I made a post discussing various versions of what guns these guys had. You jump in prattling something about prohibitionists and bans and whatever else you happen to be on about. Can we discuss the actual content of the post without your obvious obsession hijacking the thread?

I refer to it as a military weapon because that's how it is labeled in the New York Times. Apart from that, I have no idea where you get anything regarding this wacky "prohibitionist" nonsense that you have brought up now in two posts on this thread, despite the fact that it has squat to do with the OP, the thread, or anything else, outside of whatever you imagine to be happening here. Since the thread has zero to do with your obvious "prohibitionist" obsession, your second paragraph is irrelevant.

I didn't post it in the gungeon because the post has nothing to do with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which seems to be the decided topic of that forum.

[Eleanors38]

11. You should cool down. Read your own comments to my question...

It was you who said:

"that the M4 (which is military grade)."

The NYT did NOT say "which is military grade." This led to my respectful question to clear up confusion. What you sent back was some snotty comments about Clancy books and "buddies in the gungeon."

You know as well as anyone that prohibitionists ROUTINELY confuse gun-types. I don't care if anyone knows the diff. between chrome molly and stainless, or the rate of twist in a barrel. But a simple question as to firearms type -- esp. one (or the other) that is ROUTINELY identified for prohibition -- is in order.

Maybe you should have posted in "the gungeon," and perhaps any confusion as to weapon type could have been cleared up. But confusion will continue as long as there is "military grade" (you) or a firearm which "is similar to the type...&quot NYT, which is not much better).

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. Whatever

Thread hijack over nonsense.

[Eleanors38]

13. If you review any of my stuff (heaven forbid)...

you will find pointed questions and comments befitting the tone of inquiry and dialogue, maybe even some off-target stuff. But you won't find much evidence of hijacking. All that had to be done was to answer the question, or just say you don't know. Respectfully, down thread please note someone else also broached questions about the M4. I had no compunction about using that quite appropriate quote from Sugarman in my conversation with him. That is a very central concern over the latest gun debate, even to the point that such ban advocacy probably overwhelmed and sunk the expanded b.g. check bill. Which I support.

[snooper2]

55. so we don't know if it is full or semi auto?

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. As I understand it, there are no fully automatic M4s

M4s as designed have semi-automatic and three round burst capabilities. M4a1's have semi and fully automatic capabilities.

The military did use M4s with three-round burst (i.e., not fully automatic) up until the last few years, when the Pentagon began transitioning to M4a1's for the fully automatic capabilities. In this sense, the question about whether the M4 was fully automatic because I used the term "military" was itself ignorant, as the M4 isn't fully automatic by design, and many military units used non-fully automatic M4's up until the phase in of the M4a1 began in 2010. Indeed, it may be that some military units still have non-fully automatic M4's, as the replacement was designed as a five year phase in beginning in 2010. The M4 can thus be like those used in the military (at least until the recent phase in ) without being fully automatic. At the same time, the claim that the "modern standard for military use" is fully automatic is strictly speaking correct, just with the M4a1, and not the M4.

As to your implied question, I decided to stop answering because this point was entirely irrelevant to the thread.

[gejohnston]

67. actually, three round burst is

full auto, and still a machine gun under the 1934 National Firearms Act. I agree, it isn't relevant to this discussion.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. Thanks...I was going by the way people discussed it on the Internet

(hence, "as I understand it&quot .

Clearly, even experienced military personnel make distinctions between "three round burst" and "full auto" in practice, and discuss them as if they are different things.

But I appreciate the legal definition here, even if it is a definition of "machine gun" under the Act rather than a deifinition of "fully automatic" under the Act. This is what I see in this regard on Wkipedia:

"Both continuous fully automatic fire and 'burst fire' (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm."

So, so, strictly speaking, saying "the three round burst IS full auto" is not really correct, as fully automatic is not the same as three-round burst, but they both constitute machine guns, yeah?

[gejohnston]

70. under the NFA

they are both machine guns and regulated as such.

[alcibiades_mystery]

71. Right, they're both machine guns

I understood that.

But you said "the three round burst IS full auto," which seems like a different point.

They both constitute a third category, "machine gun," for the purposes of the definition. Therefore, an M4 can be a machine gun and regulated under the Act without being fully automatic, right? Indeed, it is not fully automatic. It has a three round burst capability. That they are both machine guns under the Act doesn't mean that the M4 is fully automatic, just that it is a regulated machine gun, right?

[gejohnston]

74. I never thought about full auto as being different

than burst mode, but legally if more than one round comes out with one press of the trigger, it needs to have a tax stamp and registered as a machine gun, assuming the CLEO will sign off on it.
Suffice to say, neither can be found at Wal Mart or any other class one dealer, and certainly not on my gun shopping list.

[alcibiades_mystery]

76. Indeed...that was my understanding, and the reason

I referred to them as "military" weapons in the OP, apart from the NY Times mention. When I looked at some information on them, nearly everything said that these are not the type of weapons typically available to civilians, which would have made it odd that Tsarnaev would have one, bought, stolen, illicit or otherwise. Pretty clearly, the debates between full auto and burst mode in military forums, and the considerations that caused the very expensive shift to the M4a1 across the military as a whole mean that three round burst and full auto are very different in function and practice, despite the fact that these different categories are both included in the wider definition of "machine gun" under the Act.

[MADem]

46. Good point--why the hell is this OP even IN GD, if the only

parameters permitted are "Which guns? These guns? Those guns?"

This isn't a Boston Bomber thread--it's a gun thread.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. It's actually: which news story: this news story, that news story, some other?

[baldguy]

18. Trying to pigeonhole a particular weapon based on trivial technical minutia

Is the pro-death gun lobby's game; it's designed to keep as many dangerous weapons in circulation as possible. And, of course we've had disastrous results. What we've had in America - which not real gun control, but only the pro-death gun lobby's parody if it - has been a failure.

The criteria for banning an assault weapon should be what the weapon does - not how it does it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. And yet "(t)rying to pigeonhole a particular weapon based on trivial technical minutia"...

is the very heart of the assault weapon ban YOU touted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2540588

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

What the bill does:

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Just like terrorism watch lists were bad:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3031131#3032492

baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-05 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
25. People are harassed, investigated & arrested for their political beliefs.

Held anonymously without charge, trial, or communication with the outside world.

The President's press secretary says that people should watch what they say, or else - and the press is too afraid to say anything.

People are prevented from traveling freely because they are on a gov't list.

until they became good when guns entered into the discussion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/www.fas.usda.gov/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x431371#431380

baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-11 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The TSA's No-Fly list is entirely different than the FBI's Terrorist Watch List.

Trying to conflate the two is RW propaganda.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/nsb/tsc/tsc_faqs

Does TSA’s Secure Flight program have anything to do with the TSDB?

Secure Flight is the U.S. Government-mandated program responsible for matching passenger information against the government watch list. Secure Flight conducts consistent watch list matching against TSDB entries for flights into, and out of, and within the U.S. As with all government programs that screen for terrorists, TSC provides the Secure Flight program support to ensure terrorist identity matches are correct.

Checking your posts for revisionism and inaccuracy takes a bit of work, but is quite illustrative
of the attitude amongst you lot here...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

91. K&R

[1-Old-Man]

43. I doubt that it was

Despite all the noise you hear full automatic weapons are rare outside of the military. Nearly all of the assult weapons you see and hear about are just glorified sport guns dressed up to look something like their military counterparts. Its sort of like painting flames on your VW-Bug and calling it a race car.

[liberalmuse]

4. It'll be interesting when the dust clears.

There are just too many conflicting reports, which is typical, but I look forward to reading The Rolling Stone article on all of this in about a year or so.

[johnwarde]

5. hmmm

an M4 is hard to come by, especially for amateur terrorists like these. My guess is they had an AR-15 and maybe a handgun.

[Eleanors38]

8. There may be a civilian type of M4, but some folks here...

eschew even the most fundamental of definitions (some are hard-line prohibitionists, which seems to go with the territory), and take this approach:


"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons." Josh Sugarman

[In_The_Wind]

35. Hello ~ johnwarde

[img][/img]

[rrneck]

9. Some police officers have a rifle in the car instead of a shotgun. They might have stolen that. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. The second story is pretty clear that they got zero guns from Officer Collier

They tried to take his sidearm, failed, and fled.

There has not been a single sourced news report that I'm aware of that 1) Officer Collier had a rifle in the car, and/or 2) that the brothers had stolen that rifle.

Perhaps that's the case, but I haven't seen any report of the kind.

[pipoman]

17. Maybe there is something to that..

I don't remember it ever taking this long for the origin of guns used in high profile cases to come out..

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. The idea being

that authorities don't want to reveal that an M4 or similar were taken from Collier's car? The thought crossed my mind. But it is strange to say that the two failed to get the handgun and fled, if they know that the brothers grabbed an M4 successfully. The wording of the story militates against it, and - to be honest - I wouldn't be convinced that MIT police would have anything more than a handgun available for regular duty, so I'm not convinced that kind of gun would even be in the car.

[X_Digger]

22. If it were a true 'M4' (full auto), that would tend to implicate a police officer's patrol rifle.

M4's (and semi-auto AR-15s) are quickly replacing the shotgun in typical officers' cars.

The second article just says that they didn't get the officer's handgun, not that they got no guns from the officer.

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. If it existed at all

It would be weird to insist that they didn't get Collier's sidearm, but to forget to mention, oh, by the way, they did happen to grab his M4! You're correct that the article doesn't specify one way or the other, but this would seem like - I dunno - relevant and important information.

[X_Digger]

24. Well, that whole line reads as a theory, too.

I'm sure we'll get more detail and a concrete timeline eventually.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. Indeed it does

As I put it elsewhere: "This sounds like a reporter talking out of his ass."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2739956

Of course, that was when I believed the seemingly sourced NY Times story. I'm not so sure I do anymore.

But, yes, the details on this stuff will become clear in the coming weeks.

[HiPointDem]

14. so they didn't have a whole arsenal? reading various posters gave me the

impression that they did.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. The jury is apparently still out

It is odd that there's been so cloudy a discussion of their guns.

[HiPointDem]

16. their cars too. lots of cloudy points.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. What's with the two cars? How did both get to the shoot out scene?

It would seem that some journalist would want to get the narrative straight here, but I don't think that's happened yet.

[grasswire]

21. yeah, and how did they shoot 200 rounds + more?

With so few guns?

[Common Sense Party]

26. All the reports I read said 200 rounds were fired during the firefight, by everyone involved.

Most of them from the responding officers. The brothers fired perhaps 50 shots, the police the rest.

[HiPointDem]

30. if you're talking about during the car/suv incident, it sure didn't sound like it.

[Common Sense Party]

37. Didn't sound like what?

Yes, that's where I heard that 200 rounds total were fired during the gun fight, most of them by the police.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. Some report were that the brothers fired over 200 rounds

It was reported here with much speculation about what size magazines and weapons they had

[Common Sense Party]

44. This is what the NYTimes said:

Two handguns and a BB gun that the authorities believe the brothers used in an earlier shootout with officers in Watertown were also recovered, said one official briefed on the investigation. The authorities said they believe the suspects had fired roughly 80 rounds in that shootout, in which Tamerlan Tsarnaev was fatally wounded, the official said.

Granted, that may be a guess, and they won't know for sure until they count all the shell casings and review the audio, etc.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. It is still evolving and things are still unclear

If the rifle was stolen from the cop, where did they get the extra magazines and other questions.

I am willing to wait to see what eventually turns up. The original details in some of the reports from Newtown were equally wrong.

[HiPointDem]

27. i think there were more than two involved, actually. it's confusing.

[MADem]

52. They were in separate cars, and they had been

transferring the bombs they had from one car to the other. When the Chinese guy they kidnapped escaped, that became a problem for them.

Problem was, the Chinese guy left his phone in the car, and the police were able to get a bead on the car via GPS.

The mayhem began a few hours earlier when the two suspects, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, and his younger brother Dzhokhar, 19, allegedly gunned down an MIT police officer as he sat in his car, then carjacked the driver of a Mercedes SUV. The brothers then fled, driving from Cambridge to Watertown in two cars, a Honda and the carjacked Mercedes. There, Watertown Police Officer Joe Reynolds spotted them.
"He sees the two cars riding in tandem," Deveau said. "He knows these are the bad guys."

Reynolds radioed for backup, but immediately the brothers leaped from their cars and began shooting at him, Deveau said. Reynolds gunned his car in reverse to get out of the line of fire as four other on-duty officers and two off-duty officers arrived.

The brothers continued firing at the officers, getting off 200 to 300 shots, Deveau said....In all, the brothers threw five bombs, Deveau said. Two didn't detonate. Investigators found six bombs in a car trunk, he said.

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/253811/14/Police-chief-details-chase-capture-in-Watertown

[kudzu22]

28. I'd guess the M4 came from the MIT officer's car

If it's truly an M4, it cannot be bought by civilians, period, full stop. You won't find one for sale at any gun store, gun show or classified ad at any price. If it didn't come from the car then it had to come from outside the US, possibly a field capture from US forces abroad.

[alcibiades_mystery]

29. That's been the suggestion

I have another one: there was no M4. Perhaps a law enforcement officer at the capture scene saw another officer walking with his own M4, and got it into his head that it was Tsarnaev's. Then that rumor spread, and became "official" knowledge enough to be transmitted to the NY Times. But there was never any M4 (or even AR-15) in the possession of these two. In the one clear image we have the shootout, the older Tsarnaev seems to be firing a handgun, while the younger Tsarnaev crouches behind the car. I think rumors of their arsenal have been greatly overblown.

[Recursion]

34. Or it's a carbine-sized semi-auto AR

Those are legal but not terribly popular; the only ones I've ever seen were fab'd by hobbyists.

[oldhippie]

39. Carbine sized ARs are very popular .....

... and about the only thing I see used at 3-gun matches and carried by my police buddies. Look at the ads and see how many 16" barreled models you see (most of them.) 16" is the shortest legal length without going the NFA/SBR route. The Bushmaster used by Adam Lanza was a carbine length AR.

And a previous poster was correct, there are no legally owned M-4s in civilian hands. The NFA full auto register was closed in '86 and the M-4 post dates that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

42. I see them everywhere, even in CA

The AR format has been one of the most popular sport rifles for better than a decade.

I don't differentiate between the stocks or handguards since that is basically furniture and addons.

[kudzu22]

38. I think that's even more plausible than my explanation

Amazing how false rumors can take hold in today's media environment.

[Eleanors38]

49. If there is no semi-auto M4, then I stand corrected.

[kudzu22]

53. I didn't mean to pick on terminology

There is a semi-auto carbine length AR-15 (sometimes called CAR-15 or LAR-15). Some news reports confuse the two.

[Eleanors38]

64. I understand. That was what prompted this discussion (I think). One thing for sure:

MSM is always oh-so-confused about guns.

[MADem]

31. The fuckers had a gun they used to kill a cop at MIT.

All this other horseshit about what other guns they had is irrelevant to me.

They're murdering little shits--one is dead, and one is alive to face some serious justice.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Then why join a thread that's discussing what guns they had?

Weird.

I posted this thread because people are citing either story as if it's decided fact. Clearly, the decided facts of the matter with respect to their guns is yet to come. I see no reason why we shouldn't announce or discuss that. It's irrelevant to you. Fine. Who cares? Maybe it's not irrelevant to everybody. The "reply" feature isn't mandatory.

[MADem]

45. Well, gee....you said

I'll just post some of these versions here with only minimum commentary...


I responded with MY commentary. What sort of commentary are you looking for? ONLY commentary that cheerleads one position or another that you've laid out? Do a poll, then.

We'll find out soon enough, I'm sure.

What's wrong with the perspective that we've got four people dead, five if you count Murderous Big Brother, a hundred and fifty maimed, and even more traumatized with injuries that cannot be seen, and that just sucks--and they are burying one of them--the kid they tried to steal the gun from-- as I type.

But if you insist on only "gun-centric" conversation, what's wrong with the theory that they had other guns, but they wanted another HAND GUN?

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. I'm mystified

I'll just post some of these versions here with only minimum commentary...

I was referring to the post itself: I'll post these versions without really promoting one or the other that much. It was for the purpose of posting the circulating versions, as I said.

I responded with MY commentary. What sort of commentary are you looking for? ONLY commentary that cheerleads one position or another that you've laid out?

I wasn't looking for any particular commentary. But your commentary seems to be "Why is anyone even discussing this?" Sorry, board police. Here's the answer: Because we are. I don't know what else to say.

But if you insist on only "gun-centric" conversation, what's wrong with the theory that they had other guns, but they wanted another HAND GUN?

Nothing is wrong with that theory. As I said, I was reporting on what was being reported. That wasn't one of the things that was being reported. Maybe they had a trunk load of muzzleloaders and an antique crossbow. Fucked if I know, but that hasn't been reported. What was reported is posted in the OP. I wasn't posting every random theory I could come up with (in which case, yours and a thousand more could have made the cut). I was posting the conflicting, reported versions.

Why you have a problem with that, I cannot fathom.

[MADem]

48. Well, maybe this thread IS better suited to the "gungeon."

You don't seem to want to hear any "reaction" to your post that doesn't involve the scenarios you postulated.

As you know, threads in GD do tend to go a bit afield in the subthreads. You want to limit the discussion in this thread to the "reported" (to your knowledge) parameters. Well, here's what I think--maybe those are wrong, too, but it won't bring the dead back.

This really isn't a "Boston Bomber" thread--it's a "gun thread" if you don't want to permit any deviation from the tight either/or construct of the OP--maybe you will get the sort of reaction you are apparently seeking in the gungeon.

Most of us out here, outside the gungeon shit-fling-fest, are just horrified that a young campus police officer is dead and being buried today. James Taylor just finished singing at his funeral. The VP and Sen Warren are on the stage. His brother is talking--it's heartbreaking.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. Have a nice day

I literally don't know how to respond to a post that so badly misreads the intention of this thread.

I am not looking for a "tight either/or" response. I don't know where you'd get such an idea. It's false. You said the discussion itself was "irrelevant" and "horseshit." That's all that happened.

This post is not about the "right to keep and bear arms." It is about the stories circulating regarding the night of April 18-19. Therefore, it's not appropriate to the group/sub-forum you mentioned.

I am equally horrified by the officer's death, and don't know why you would think otherwise.

I'll just wish you the best here.

[MADem]

56. I didn't say the discussion was "irrelevant."

I said it was irrelevant to ME. I made it very clear that I wasn't shutting you or anyone else out. I was simply expressing my opinion, my reaction--and I think you took it the wrong way.

[alcibiades_mystery]

57. I apologize

I didn't interpret your thread as tangential but related. I interpreted it as an attack on the existence of this thread in the first place.

You said: "All this other horseshit about what other guns they had is irrelevant to me."

I interpreted that as "This thread's topic is horseshit."

Once again, this is not a gun thread, but a thread about conflicting news reports. I don't think that's horseshit, nor do I think it belongs in the gun forum.

Sorry this got out of hand. Again, have a nice day.

[Eleanors38]

51. Respectfully, most of us in the "gungeon" are just as horrified.

[MADem]

54. I have no doubt of that.

I do think people who normally hang out outside the gungeon are a bit less enthused about a thread that limits itself to the whole "sausage making" aspect, particularly in GD, and doesn't welcome subthreads that are tangential but related.

[Eleanors38]

63. I agree with you. I wonder how much longer the Mods are going to allow this..

third gun-related forum/group to continue its ad hoc existence. There's been a LOT of leeway given gun-controllers, both in format structure and the kind of language & dialogue that passes for discussion. Did you see that post which stated something or rather about the strategy he thinks the mods will follow? Seems some of the "trolls" self-inoculate by calling out "other" trolls, all the while trolling.

[MADem]

66. We don't have mods anymore, we have hosts, and they

generally like to achieve "consensus" on a lock, which results, often, in delays.

Some forums use the simple "majority rule" format. It's still a rather unwieldy process, but over time, hopefully, people who troll will step over the line once too often.

Also, the hosts only have control over the OP. If a thread goes crazy after a fairly normal OP, the hosts have no power to lock it up. That's when the whole jury/alert system comes into play.

I didn't see the thread you mentioned, but I am not surprised.

When it gets too absurd, I just head for the Trash Thread button!

[Recursion]

33. For those curious, the M4 is a somewhat smaller and lighter AR-15

The full-auto version is what we used in the Marine Corps because it's better for coming around corners in an urban environment than a full-sized rifle. The semi-auto version is generally not as popular on the civilian market as the full-sized AR-15, but it can be found. It's legal in Massachusetts as long as it doesn't have a place to mount a bayonet or a silencer.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. State of MA has said neither of the brothers had gun paperwork

So whatever they had was not legal

[MADem]

60. The serial number was filed off the gun they had.

This says "only one handgun" but doesn't talk about rifles. This story is still evolving...

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL and ADAM GOLDMAN — Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Two U.S. officials say investigators in the Boston bombings have recovered only one handgun believed to have been used in a gun battle with police.

One official said the serial number on what they described as a 9 mm pistol was scratched off. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss details of the investigation still in progress.

Tamerlan Tzarnaev (TA'-mehr-luhn tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) died in a shootout with police. His brother, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (joh-KHAHR'), was later caught hiding in a boat.

Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis says over 250 rounds were fired in the shootout. Police said the men also used explosives. Davis said shots were fired from the boat where Tsarnaev was found. It wasn't clear whether he was armed when he was captured.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/24/2847024/officials-boston-bombing-suspects.html#storylink=cpy

[alcibiades_mystery]

61. That's the ticket! Thanks

That looks like confirmation on the previous "one handgun" news story, at least for now.

How weird is this as a set of sentences: "Davis said shots were fired from the boat where Tsarnaev was found. It wasn't clear whether he was armed when he was captured."

Huh?

From everything that's been reported thus far, Tamerlan Tsarnaev approached the police in Watertown firing, then ran out of ammunition. The younger Tsarnaev got in the car, then ran over his brother. If only one gun has been recovered, then the younger brother could not have had a gun in the boat.

[MADem]

62. Maybe the unnamed source was parsing, though.

I look for the dog that didn't bark.

The word "handgun" is used. They may have had a rifle, or a BB gun, or a water pistol filled with ammonia...?

It's still early days, and they aren't telling us everything.

I think there may be a couple of other idiots out there--they may not be front-line plotters, but perhaps accessories before the fact.

We'll see...!

[bluedigger]

72. The reports are still confusing.

We have photos of Tamerlan shooting at the police in Watertown, and it is reported that Dzhokhar ran over Tamerlan in his escape. If there was only one gun between them are we supposed to believe that Dzhokhar, while under fire, retrieved Tamerlan's gun, left him in the street, got back in a vehicle, and then ran him over? Because that is what would have had to happen for him to have a gun in the boat. I guess it's posssible...

Personally, I think that Dzhokhar was unarmed in the boat and the volley of shots all came from LEO's with (understandably) itchy trigger fingers. The poor pics I have seen of the boat all look like the holes were made by bullets entering, not exiting the boat, the boat owner didn't say anything about seeing a weapon when he looked in, the tarp was mostly over it, etc...

[alcibiades_mystery]

73. I agree

The LEO's were shooting at the boat and each other. The description of the capture by the police chief was very cagey in this respect. He said that fire was coming from behind the house (did not specify the boat). He also said that Tsarnaev was pointing through the tarp, but they couldn't see what he was pointing. I don't think he had a gun in that boat.

[MADem]

75. The source used the word HANDgun.

The source didn't say anything about rifles.

In any event, the throat wound may have either come from shrapnel or a halfassed attempt by Little Brother to cut his own throat.

I know they used a bunch of flash bangs to freak the guy out in the boat and get him to shift his behind out of there and surrender.

[bluedigger]

78. I realize that.

But if he had a rifle in the boat that would have been even more noticeable to the the guy that found him, who hasn't mentioned it. I'm just trying to puzzle it out.


eta: I didn't see the post in LBN with the update on this. Sounds like he was indeed unarmed in the boat.

[MADem]

85. The local news (WBZ) reported that this evening, as well--that he was unarmed, at

least in terms of stuff that could shoot people. Not sure if he had a knife or something on those lines.

[alcibiades_mystery]

88. A number of news reports today pretty much confirm the one-gun theory

The Washington Post reported it as well, with only an implied sidelong glance at the earlier (seemingly false) sourced story in the NY Times. I think it's pretty clear that the younger Tsarnaev was unarmed the entire night, at least, as you say, in terms of firearms. Certainly, had they managed to get Officer Collier's holster lock open, that would have changed.

[cleduc]

59. I've listened to audio of both gunfights

in Watertown - the first one and then the boat.

Towards the end of the first encounter and during the gunfight from the boat, there were periods when it sounded like automatic fire.

Automatic fire was also reported on the police scanner during the first gunfight.

The M4A1 is capable of automatic fire. The M4 itself is not - semi automatic 3 round bursts.

Regardless of the particular model, a rifle of that type is designed for killing human beings in close quarters. And the residents were lucky to avoid injury as those bullets can pass through some walls.

I continue to be dismayed by those who stand in the way of gun control of these types of weapons.

[gejohnston]

69. technical correction

three round burst is still full auto, since more than one round comes out at the press of the trigger. If it is capable of three round burst, it is a machine gun under the 1934 National Firearms Act. As for the power and ability to go through walls, while the round is used for long range target shooting in both semi autos and bolt action rifles, it is less powerful than a .30-30 used for deer hunting, which is why the 5.56 or .223 round (regardless of the round it comes out of) is not allowed for deer or larger game in many states, including Wyoming, for the simple reason that it isn't powerful enough for a deer.

[Recursion]

77. Both of those have been extremely strictly regulated for 80 years

I don't know any serious group that wants to overturn the NFA.

[alcibiades_mystery]

80. Well, mystery seemingly solved here: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had no gun at all (in the boat)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014465108

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-boston-suspect-had-no-firearm-when-barrage-of-bullets-hit-hiding-place/2013/04/24/376fc8a0-ad18-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html

Although police feared he was heavily armed, the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing had no firearms when he came under a barrage of police gunfire that struck the boat where he was hiding, according to multiple federal law enforcement officials.

This matches the claims in story #2 above, and I think probably puts to rest the early reports of two handguns, an M4 (!), and a bb gun printed by the NY Times. It also makes the motive for the horrendous murder of Officer Collier appear more and more to be an effort to steal his firearm. Also put to bed are the claims of an attempted suicide, at least by gun, in the boat.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

81. My question now is --

the reports are the officers fired on the boat when they were fired on my Tsarnaev -- since he had no gun, what started the one-sided firefight??

[alcibiades_mystery]

82. Panic and movement

I wonder whether the younger Tsarnaev was even shot before the boat shooting. The boat owner now denies he saw blood on the boat, at least in some accounts. Was there actually blood in the car? Was he really bleeding for 16 hours before being apprehended? Or were his wounds a result of being shot in the boat?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

84. Yeah, I noticed the story changed a bit --

from the media version to the boat owner's version in his interview.

He didn't see any blood on the outside of the boat:


"At this point, he didn't see blood on the exterior tarp, despite what police have said.

"No indication of anything. I know people say I saw blood on the boat, 'He saw blood on the boat.' Not true," he said.

"I said 'OK, everything is fine.' There are no visible signs of blood outside the boat. I went inside," he said.

But in a fit of obsession, he returned to the boat, climbed a ladder and inspected the Slip Away II again.

"I got three steps up the ladder and rolled the shrink-wrap. I didn't expect to see anything, but I saw blood on the floor of the boat. A good amount of blood," he told the affiliate.

"And I said 'Wow, did I cut myself last time?' I thought. I was in the boat a couple of weeks ago. Then I just look over there, and there is more blood," he continued.

The blood led to a revelation that would end a two-day manhunt for Tsarnaev. "


Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/national/david-henneberry-boat-owner-interview-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-boston-bombing-suspect-found-in-his-boat#ixzz2RRRJ3GHo

So its sounds like Tsarnaev was already seriously wounded before being discovered. With that said, he may have been additionally wounded at the boat scene. The wounds/blood staining would look very different than the prior shootout. Doctors should be able to make determination.

[MADem]

87. Yes--he was shot in the firefight where his brother got run over.

They found blood at the car after he drove away, and they also found blood and urine behind a house. They had dogs but the dogs weren't as good as the ones in the movies, and they lost the trail.

IIRC, that was a leg wound.

His throat injury isn't a bullet--it's either shrapnel or a self-inflicted knife injury. It has a long flat aspect, apparently.

[MADem]

86. I know they were shooting a lot of flash-bangs at him.

I do know they wanted to roust him and take him alive. Perhaps there was something in the thermal imaging that freaked them out?

[squids]

90. Here's what started it...

The report I read stated that it was an officer from above who fired the first shots after seeing Tsarnaev's arm raise out of the boat. It didn't look like a gun, he thought it was a bomb, and started shooting. His shooting prompted the shooting of all other officers until told to cease fire. This is the first reporting I saw describing what prompted the shootout, stated he was unarmed, and only one gun found and recovered the night before:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57581048/police-believe-tsarnaev-brothers-killed-officer-for-his-gun/

The entire M4 being found on the boat and multiple guns being recovered appears to be made up by the New York Times. All media reporting this used the NYT statements. Either they interviewed the wrong people for this misinformation or that is what the police wanted people to believe to try and explain shooting the boat up when he was unarmed. Perhaps it was done to reignite "banning assault rifles". It just appears to have been massive confusion by the police and units at the scene as some of the statements regarding gun exchange from the boat were announced over police radio, but it has been stated all the gunfire was police only. This is in contradiction to all live reporting which stated police fired no shots and all gunfire came from the boat. Apparently those on the scene were trigger happy, and the guy who shot first must have had no communication or orders from whoever was in charge, if anyone actually was.

[Skip Intro]

83. No guns at all. Wow.

The whole thing smells, doesn't it?

[MADem]

89. They had pressure cooker bombs and pipe bombs.

They weren't planning on a shoot-out, they were looking for another crowd to bomb. They got thwarted because they were incompetent terrorists.

Supposedly, they were headed for Manhattan before they got all screwed up with murder of the MIT police officer and the hostage that got away.

The only thing that stinks is their ability to plan a second terrorist event--and thank heavens for that.

These guys killed four people, and wounded nearly two hundred. I don't blame the police for approaching the idiot that survived without playing. And they got him alive--if something really was stinking, here, they'd have shot him and dropped a hot gun in the boat.

But hey, whatever. Conspiracies are fun for some folk.